Suchergebnisse

What is the relationship between "internal unit demarcation" & national identity? National (state) identity is defined by the external borders of the national state & expressed by its internal units, as is that of substate & transstate collectivities. Negotiation over the demarcation of (their) space in the state is also a negotiation of place & thus of identity. Here, the experiences of India, Pakistan, & Sri Lanka underpin this argument. Adapted from the source document.

Suggests that in order to minimize conflict, the state has to find ways in which a dialogue is sustained. This dialogue is carried on in different arenas and through different media. The arenas may be politics, economics, culture and custom. The media include schooling, communications, and formal legislation and rules. Traces the history of unit demarcation in post-colonial India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka largely through the sequence of changes in units initiated by the state-of-the-whole, usually in response to complaints or demands from regionally-based groups within the state. (Original abstract - amended)

A SUMMARY OF THE AVAILABLE SCHOLARLY WRITINGS ON INTEGRATION, CO-OPERATION AND NATION-BULDING SETS THE BACKDROP FOR AN EXAMINATION OF SELF DEFINING PROPOSITIONS FROM THE INDIAN, PAKISTANI AND SRI LANKAN CONSTITUTIONS AND A DIGEST OF IDEAS ON INTEGRATION EXPRESSED BY ELITE INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS. THE ARTICLE EXAMINES HOW STATES ENVISION THEMSELVES AND THE VISION OF ELITE MEMBERS OF NATIONALITIES WITHIN THE STATE.

A summary of the available scholarly writing on integration, co-operation and nation-building sets the backdrop for an examination of self-defining propositions from the Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan constitutions and a digest of ideas on integration expressed by elite interview respondents in Madras, India and Colombo, Sri Lanka in 1996. (Original abstract - amended)

ABSTRACTIn a recent paper, McKnew, Saydam, and Coleman [3] presented a novel zero‐one integer programming formulation of the multilevel dynamic, deterministic lot‐sizing problem in assembly systems. They stated that "the relaxed linear programming solution to this formulation will always be integer' [3, p. 280] since the constraint matrix is totally unimodular. In this note, we point out that the constraint matrix is not totally unimodular and therefore the authors'claim that a linear relaxation of the zero‐one integer formulation always yields an integer solution is not true.

The treatment of war wounds has been an ancient art, constantly refined and adapted to reflect improvements in warfare strategies, weapons technology, transportation and damage control surgical practices. Throughout history, more soldiers died from disease than combat wounds, and misconceptions regarding the best timing and mode of treatment for injuries often resulted in more harm than good. Since the 19th century, mortality from war wounds steadily decreased as surgeons developed systems for rapidly moving the wounded from the battlefield to frontline hospitals. This article reviews the trends in military trauma management including triage, evacuation and field hospital setup in the Armed Forces.

This paper describes the data acquisition and high level trigger system of the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, as deployed during Run 1. Data flow as well as control, configuration and monitoring aspects are addressed. An overview of the functionality of the system and of its performance is presented and design choices are discussed. ; Funding: We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZS, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020 and Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Region Auvergne and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.

We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently. We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC, and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST, and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR, and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE, and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF, and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020, and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Région Auvergne, and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF, and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; Generalitat de Catalunya, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom. The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK), and BNL (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non-WLCG resource providers. Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref. [74]